[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Khamani And Ors vs Vinod Paliwal And Anr. ... on 21 January, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:4823]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1062/2018

1.       Smt. Khamani W/o Ghisa Ram,
2.       Ganesh S/o Ghisa Ram,
3.       Kumari Sita D/o Ghisa Ram,
4.       Shambhu Lal S/o Ghisa Ram,
5.       Usha D/o Ghisa Ram,
6.       Gehari Lal S/o Ghisa Ram, Appellants No. 3 To 6 Are
         Minor Through Mother Khamani. All B/c Gameti, R/o
         Kalodar, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand.
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                       Versus
1.       Vinod Paliwal S/o Gopi Lal Joshi, R/o Near Mahadeo
         Temple, Kuncholi, Post Bagol, Tehsil Nathdwara, District
         Rajsamand.
2.       Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company, Office E-
         8-E.p.i.p. Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Nikhil Ajmera
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Vishal Singhal



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

21/01/2026

1. The present Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed against the

judgment/award dated 26.10.2017 passed by learned

Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Tribunal, (Jurisdiction

Rajsamand), Bhilwara ("learned Tribunal"), in Case No. W.C.

184/2015, whereby appellants-claimants were held entitled for

payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,87,613/- and

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:46:23 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4823] (2 of 8) [CMA-1062/2018]

liability to pay was fastened upon respondent no.1 with interest

@12% per annum from the accident i.e., 02.07.2013.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell are

that on 02.07.2013, at about 4:00 pm., the deceased, namely, Mr.

Ghisa Ram, aged 33 years was driving a tractor bearing

registration no. RJ-30-RA-0100, being in employment of

Respondent no. 1 as a driver. During the course of employment,

the said vehicle lost control and fell into a pond, which resulted in

the death of Mr. Ghisa Ram. The said vehicle was insured by the

respondent-insurer.

3. A claim petition was filed by legal representatives of the

deceased before the Tribunal claiming a just and fair

compensation. It was submitted that deceased was working as a

driver, earning Rs.5000/- per month.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed 4

issues for determination. With regard to issues no. 1 and 2,

Tribunal examined various evidence on record and held that

deceased Mr. Ghisa Ram was indeed working as a driver and the

said accident took place during the course of employment and

took deceased's monthly income to the tune of Rs.4,836/- as per

the minimum wages notification.

5. With regard to issues no. 3 and 4, the liability to pay

compensation, was fastened upon the employer on the ground

that accident took place during the course of employment, yet

insurance company was absolved on the ground that deceased Mr.

Ghisa Ram possessed a license only to drive a Light Motor Vehicle

("LMV"), whereas the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle,

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:46:23 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4823] (3 of 8) [CMA-1062/2018]

which resulted in the violation of the terms and conditions of the

policy.

6. Learned Tribunal vide its order dated 26.10.2017, awarded

compensation to appellants claimants amounting to Rs.4,87,613/-

and the liability to pay, was fastened upon the respondent

employer along with interest @12% per annum from date of

accident.

7. The present appeal is filed against the said judgment/award

passed by learned Tribunal on the ground that Tribunal erred in

exonerating the respondent-insurer from the liability to pay the

said compensation. The quantum of compensation is not

challenged herein.

8. Learned counsel appearing for appellants submits that

Tribunal wrongly exonerated the respondent insurer from its

liability to pay compensation. It is contended that once the driver

was holding a valid driving licence to drive an LMV, no separate or

additional endorsement was required for driving a transport

vehicle. Therefore, he submits, that there is no violation of the

insurance policy and hence, the finding of learned Tribunal

regarding issue no.4 is contrary to the law laid down in Mukund

Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017)

14 SCC 663.

9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-

insurer, submits that there was a breach of the conditions of

insurance policy as driver of the offending vehicle was not having

the valid and effective licence to ply the transport vehicle in

question, as he was only having the licence to ply light motor

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:46:23 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4823] (4 of 8) [CMA-1062/2018]

vehicle only. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in fastening

the liability upon the respondent-employer herein and the said

judgment warrants no interference from this court.

10. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and

perused the documents on record.

11. This Court finds merit in appellant's contentions. Record of

the case reveals that though the offending vehicle is a transport

vehicle and the driver thereof, at the time of accident, was holding

a valid LMV license under Section 10(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988, yet, in view of the fact that the gross vehicle weight of

the said vehicle does not exceed 7,500 kg, the driver is held to be

duly and validly licensed to drive the same, irrespective of the

nature / use of the vehicle.

12. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mandates that a

driver must possess a driving licence in respect of the class of

vehicle and not for a particular type thereof. A single class may

comprise different kinds of vehicles, and so long as they fall within

the same class, no separate or specific endorsement is required to

drive each particular kind of vehicle. Furthermore, the classes of

Light Motor Vehicles and transport vehicles overlap, and,

therefore, no separate authorization is required for driving a

transport vehicle.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan (Supra)

held that a person holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle

is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus of that same

weight class. There is no statutory requirement to obtain a

separate endorsement specifically to drive such a transport

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:46:23 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4823] (5 of 8) [CMA-1062/2018]

vehicle. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced

hereunder:

"59. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28-3-2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of "light motor vehicles" and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act "Transport Vehicle" would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in Sections 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed.

60.1. "Light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:46:23 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4823] (6 of 8) [CMA-1062/2018]

not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994. 60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, "unladen weight"

of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle"

as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form."

14. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj

Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rambha Devi

Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018 decided on 06.11.2024 has upheld

the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) and

thus, the requirement of having transport license to drive the

pickup which is a goods transport vehicle was not required as the

respondent-driver was having the driving licence of light motor

vehicle category. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is

reproduced hereunder:--

"131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under: (I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 05:46:23 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4823] (7 of 8) [CMA-1062/2018]

(e) of the MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes.

An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e-rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a 'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.

(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving 'transport vehicles' would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'.

(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment. ....."

15. In this view, the findings of Tribunal regarding issues no. 3

and 4 is erroneous and clearly against the law laid down in

Mukund Dewangan (Supra) so also Rambha Devi (Supra).

Thus, the same cannot be allowed to stand, hereby set aside.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned award is set aside to

the extent of exonerating the respondent-insurer by learned

Tribunal on the ground that driver did not have a valid driving

licence for transport vehicle. Respondent-Insurance company is

held liable and hence, hereby directed to make payment of the

quantum of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal i.e.,

Rs.4,81,673/- within a period of two months from the date of this

order along with interest @12% per annum from the date of